Tyndale Bulletin 67.1 (2016) 145-160 ANCIENT ROME’S DAILY NEWS PUBLICATION WITH SOME LIKELY IMPLICATIONS FOR EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES Brian J. Wright Summary A detailed study on ancient Rome’s daily news publication is currently absent in early Christian studies. This article seeks to begin filling this lacuna by surveying the history of this Roman news bulletin and highlighting the sorts of data that must be taken into account in order to determine the publication’s subject matter, scope of distribution, and possible relevance for early Christian studies. 1. Introduction The Roman government published and distributed a news publication for the populace of the city of Rome before, during, and after the first two centuries of the Common Era (ca. 59 BC – AD 222).1 The evidence of such activity is well established by authors writing before, 1 For the purposes of this study, the Latin phrase Acta Diurna will be used as the categorical title for this daily news publication in Rome in order to maintain consistency and alleviate any unnecessary confusion. At the same time, it is important to note that many other terms were used to refer to this same news bulletin in both Latin (e.g. Acta Publica, Acta Urbana, Acta Rerum Urbanarum, Acta Populi) and Greek (e.g. τὰ ὑπομνήματα, τὰ δημόσια ὑπομνήματα, τὰ δημόσια γράμματα, τὰ κοινὰ ὑπομνήματα; depending on context, sometimes even ἐφημερίς). Thus, every ancient text cited will not use the same language or phrase to denote this publication, and context will still be needed to justify the identification with this publication. Moreover, one must be cautious in assuming just the word acta is always referring to an urban gazette because that assumption is not always true. The noun-form acta can refer to other documentary sources. Also for the purposes of this study, unless otherwise noted, all ancient quotations will be taken from Harvard’s digital Loeb Classical Library. 146 TYNDALE BULLETIN 67.1 (2016) during, and after the same era.2 Although scholars have known about this news bulletin for a long time now,3 it appears to have dodged any substantial academic treatment in early Christian studies.4 Four broad examples of such minimal scholarly discussion ought to suffice here. First, David Aune offers only one sentence on Acta in his reference work.5 Yet even then, he appears to be strictly referring to one particular version of Acta, the acta senatus, and not to any others. Second, Brill’s New Pauly online platform is too narrow in scope. It does not include some of the classic works on the topic in various languages. Gessel’s article in English (see note 2) and Behrisch’s essay in German (mentioned below) are absent, just to name two. Third, Craig Keener references the topic in his recent Acts commentary when he writes in a footnote: ‘The genre [of the Book of Acts] should not be confused, because of its English title, with Latin acta, which could be gazettes (including official events, decisions, lawsuits, and speeches) or lists of emperors’ enactments.’6 But besides referencing two general studies on the broad category of Acta in the same footnote, he does not pursue its relevance to Luke-Acts in any more detail, such as the likelihood that the author, who does research 2 The standard work is still Ernst Willibald Emil Hübner, De Senatus populique Romani actis scripsit Aemilius Rübner (Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1859). The now classic concise discussion, though often missing in more recent works, is H. L. Van Gessel, ‘Acta Urbis – Ancient Rome’s Local Paper’, International Communication Gazette 16.1 (1970), 88-104. Cf. Attilio Mastino, Gli ‘Acta Urbis’: Il ‘giornalismo’ nell’antica Roma (Urbino: Montefeltro, 1978). 3 Beyond mere historical treatments, for example, Guido Gonella published 1,076 articles between 1933 and 1940 in L’Osservatore romano under the rubric ‘Acta Diurna’, which highlight some of the major concerns of the Catholic Church in the 1930s. Even more, R. I. W. Westgate published a laudatory academic review of a contemporary ‘Acta Diurna’ being published and used in England and American schools in order to teach students Latin. He states that it is: ‘A first-class Latin newspaper … which can be recommended without reserve to all who teach Latin. … It is written in good Latin that would have been intelligible in the days of the Roman Republic.’ He goes on to say that it is also being appreciated by more mature students, such as graduate students, ‘who are trying to learn Latin in a hurry’ (‘Acta Diurna’, Classical Weekly 45.8 (1952), 121). 4 This absence further supports Larry Hurtado’s observation regarding the lack of familiarity among some biblical scholars of book culture in the first few centuries of the Common Era. See Larry Hurtado, ‘Oral Fixation and New Testament Studies? “Orality”, “Performance” and Reading Texts in Early Christianity’, NTS 60 (2014), 321-40. 5 The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2010), 2. 6 Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 1: Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 89n320. WRIGHT: Ancient Rome’s Daily News 147 and claims to work like an ancient historian, used such Acta for identifying officials, summarisng trial scenes, and examining records of speeches.7 Fourth, in William V. Harris’s influential study on ancient Graeco-Roman literacy levels,8 which has significantly influenced New Testament research, he never identifies or discusses its relevance to ancient literacy.9 The closest he comes to discussing any Acta is when he uses the Acta Senatus (i.e., proceedings of the Senate) as an example of the expanded function of writing from political life. The goal of this essay, then, is twofold. First, it will highlight some significant details regarding the history of this Roman news publication, especially the features pertaining to the first two centuries AD. Second, it will briefly examine the subject matter and scope of distribution of these texts in order to further explore how this additional literary development intersected with the wider Roman imperial world. By doing so, we may draw a more reliable picture regarding ancient media and the place of texts in early Christianity. While these two ends comprise the main goal, I will also note some likely implications this evidence has on some topics in early Christian studies, even though a full treatment of each is outside the scope of this brief study, such as the frequency of divorce as implied by 1 Corinthians 7, the expectation of literary works being broadly disseminated, and the rapid spread and impact of idioms via written material. 2. Historical Survey In 1979, Barry Baldwin noticed that the main academic works examining the Acta Diurna were almost all from the 19th century, ‘restricted by and large to the older German and French manuals and to 7 I owe these three observations to Ben Sutton, who has since presented an unpublished paper on Luke’s historiographical technique (‘Suetonius, Asconius, and Luke: Roman Authors and the Consultation of News Reports’, presented at the annual meeting of the Institute of Biblical Research in Atlanta, Georgia on 20 November 2015). 8 William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989). 9 He does, however, footnote one key text (Suetonius, Julius 20.1) explicitly mentioning the Acta Diurna (Harris, Literacy, 206n158). On the importance of incorporating additional evidence in ancient literacy studies, as well as a few problems regarding the widely held assumptions operative among scholars working in early Christian studies, see my article, ‘Ancient Literacy in New Testament Research: Incorporating A Few More Lines of Enquiry’, TJ 36.2 (2015), 161-89. 148 TYNDALE BULLETIN 67.1 (2016) theses and journals not readily accessible’.10 He went on to suggest that these same treatments ‘do not always provide accurate or complete assemblages of the primary information’.11 Almost 20 years later, in 1995, Lars Behrisch saw a similar picture. After noting the heated debates in German Classical Studies during the 19th century and the numerous publications produced on the subject during the same period, he claims that little interest can be found in publications in the 20th century – as if to suggest that a final conclusion has been reached. Similarly to Baldwin, he states: ‘Nevertheless, the problem is far from resolved.’12 Shortly thereafter, in 1997, Peter White ambitiously denied that we have cogent answers to many of the questions regarding this news publication, and boldly concluded that ‘it is a near certainty that he [Caesar] did not publish anything resembling a modern newspaper’.13 Although this essay will not be addressing the historical debate concerning the Acta Diurna, it will outline some major details of its literary history before discussing its contents and distribution. The Latin term Acta in its broadest sense means ‘the things that have been done’,14 or more simply, ‘events’. Without any additional qualifiers, these events could – and did – include public and private activities; secular and sacred matters; government and civilian affairs. With additional qualifiers, these events had a narrower and even more specialised meaning. The Acta Militaria refers to published military events,15 the Acta Senatus indicates published senatorial events,16 and 10 Barry Baldwin, ‘The acta diurna’, Chiron 9 (1979), 189-203, esp. 189. 11 Baldwin, ‘The acta diurna’, 189. 12 ‘Dennoch ist die Problematik keineswegs abgeschlossen’ (Lars Behrisch, ‘Die “acta diurna”: eine römische Staatszeitung?’, Altertum 41.1 [1995], 55-68, esp. 55.) 13 Peter White, ‘Julius Caesar and the Publication of Acta in Late Republican Rome,’ Chiron 27 (1997), 73-84, esp.